A large shady creature which appears to be a Bigfoot is spotted walking through the trees across a canyon. Before we began filming the figure could be seen walking through the clearing of snow just to the left of the trees.Published on Mar 13, 2012 by Lukeking327

I would like to see an extensive study where you take different people with different body types, some tall and burly like Bobo I suppose from Finding Bigfoot, and dress him in different types of clothing, and videotape them from a distance to recreate such scenarios, then do side by side comparisons. My hypothesis is that you’d have a lot of blobsquatch videos created. If not, then maybe you could prove that these rather poor images are of some use.

I know that it is a very shaky, blurry video that only lasts for a few seconds but it really does look like a genuine Bigfoot to me. I don’t see how it could be something else that was mistaken for a Bigfoot.

I think this video is either an utter hoax, i.e., a guy in a suit, or it is a genuine sighting of an actual Bigfoot.

Everything says, with no narration required: he saw movement – or the standing figure – up there, got the cam up, and focused on the general area, stopping when he glimpsed whatever-it-was.

If that isn’t a bigfoot, the zoom isn’t my tipoff.

Given that there is such a distance between them that they would have needed to communicate remotely to time this; the guy up there would be wearing a suit that basically doesn’t even get seen; and that there’s a lot of hiking involved to set up this very crappy two-second video, hoax is the last thing I would think about this. Hoaxers always set up transparently easy-to-shoot-and-debunk videos. Always. Never seen an exception. When the easiest explanation – and the most mundane – is to take the story as delivered, the story as delivered is probably what happened.

And given the source and the quotes from Meldrum, “hoax” I’m really doubting. The kid’s quotes and behavior don’t sound like a hoaxer either. That’s usually pretty easy to suss, too.

Oh, that’s something. But no way to tell what. Jeff might be sounding a wee tad more excited than he should about something this inconclusive.

Honestly I just don’t get this video. This could be anything, or anyone. It could easily be a person walking into the woods. Not a hoaxer, just a person filmed from a great distance walking into the woods. What is it about the clip that points to it being other than this?

Also, regarding DWA’s comment:

“Hoaxers always set up transparently easy-to-shoot-and-debunk videos. Always. Never seen an exception. When the easiest explanation – and the most mundane – is to take the story as delivered, the story as delivered is probably what happened.”

Always? Doesn’t this assume that you know what videos are hoaxed and which are real? And which are misidentifications from a great distance? Can you really know this with 100% certainty? Perhaps you are viewing several really good hoaxes and assuming that they are the real thing? Perhaps you are viewing a misidentified human being in silhouette–that’s what many of these videos appear to be to me, and many others.

And what about the “simplest explanation” idea? I’m fine with that. These kids saw someone/something way up on the ridge and filmed it walking into the woods. They don’t have to be hoaxers. Since it’s a distance, since the video quality is low, and since the image is partially shrouded with vegetation, you get a big black something video, aka blobsquatch, aka why on earth are people raving about this video?

Well, I don’t think these kids are trying to pull a hoax. I think they genuinely saw something, they couldn’t tell what it was, and they tried to get it on camera. Whether it’s a Sasquatch or a hunter/hiker, I don’t think any of us can say for certain.

I don’t think there is any possible way that this could be a misidentification because the kids later climbed the ridge and photographed very large footprints at the place where they originally saw it. This is mentioned in the article and the footprints were shown on ABC news a few hours ago. The footprints were definitely NOT made by any known animal and look like giant hominid footprints.

So that is why I think it is either an outright hoax or an actual Bigfoot.

Hoaxers always set up transparently easy-to-shoot-and-debunk videos. Always. Never seen an exception. When the easiest explanation – and the most mundane – is to take the story as delivered, the story as delivered is probably what happened.

And yep, I always know.

Why? Simple logic. Always at the command of someone who is in command of the evidence.

What could a hoaxer gain from the effort and money – both enormous – required to make a convincing video? What hoaxer has? The logical mundane answers: Nothing, and no one.

Who’s gotten rich off this? No one. And it’s simply not logical to believe there’s a billionaire hiding out somewhere, totally incommunicado, who is making a fortune off fakes of a seven-foot bipedal ape. Nor is it logical that there is any other motivation for anyone to do this – and never reveal they have done it, to anyone. This is why the logical mundane conclusion is: P/G isn’t faked.

To presume illogic – like, P/G is fake, and in 45 years we have seen not shred of evidence one that that is the case – without examining the evidence, is…well, it’s simply not logical, and totally unbecoming a scientific mind. It’s an extremely poor excuse to scoff at evidence you know the public isn’t smart enough to call you on. With some exceptions [raises eyebrow].

Why the enormous effort? Simple, if one is in command of the evidence. Fakes always have one thing that gives them away totally: they look like a person. If you’re familiar with the encounter literature, you know people are not encountering humans in suits. The reports make it obvious. Human proportions automatically disqualify the subject. As do movements that indicate this ape couldn’t hide from a Boy Scout troop. I have not read a report that, if it was fake, wouldn’t have given anyone in America – yes, including him – serious financial pause before attempting it.

(Hint: Bill Munns. Google him.)

The simplest explanation of this video – keep in mind that they’ve reported this to the press, and the’d just look stupid if they came back later and said that’s Joe in a suit – is that they saw something up there. They video’d it.

And I gotta say, it doesn’t really look like a bear. It looks – not conclusively, but I’ve seen a lot of bears in the wild – like it could conceivably be something else for which the evidence for is overwhelming.

Why does every bit of video evidence have to be either a blatant hoax or a slam-dunk, bonafide sighting? Isn’t it possible that there are the occasional, serendipitous “I caught something… not sure what” pieces that are just interesting food for thought? That’s where I place this footage. Not going to change anyone’s mind but very interesting because if it is a hoax, it’s very subtle. I think it’s stuff like this that makes the whole Bigfoot question so intriguing. Stop expecting too much from every bit of evidence that pops up and just look at it for what it is… a moment in time that continues the discussion. Not everything is going to be conclusive.

How many sasquatch videos are there that anyone finds remotely compelling? There are only two that I do.

This wasn’t one of them…but then I saw that track, the photo of which Meldrum – he of the ichnotaxonomy paper, he of the specialty in the directly related field – is holding in his hands in the video. So, given that addition, I might have to add this one. OK, three.

Anyone spending serious time and money on a fake is going to ensure that fake is compelling. They didn’t get all that money for no reason, and they’re going to need all they can spare. (Google Bill Munns!) To presume that a rich person will toss off a bad fake is illogical; the rich are the biggest pennypinchers among us. (How they got rich, people.) To presume that anyone who isn’t rich will do a good fake is even more illogical, if one is in command of the evidence.

Is it conceivable? Sure. Is it the kind of thing that justifies tossing the evidence because it could be? Absolutely positively not, to anyone who thinks logically, and scientists are charged with doing that.

When evidence doesn’t constitute proof, one is required to judge. The logical, mundane judgment on this one?

This is very possibly – one might even now say likely – a sasquatch.

1. The subject appears bipedal. The orientation of the figure is clearly vertical. Bears do not walk like that on their hind legs. They stagger at best. What looks like an arm is way longer than any bear’s front leg would be.

2. We have that track. Two things we are aware of make a track anything like that.

3. There is no logical reason to believe the video shooter was hoaxing, or being hoaxed. Unlikely, in the extreme, as every scinitilla of evidence supports.

On this evidence, and this evidence alone, we suddenly and dramatically have one of the only three compelling sasquatch videos of which I am aware.

Could it be a hoax? Well, that’s the only other thing it could be. And logic dictates it just ain’t likely. Possible, yes. But so unlikely that the focus now is on figuring out what it could be.

If we have somebody ready to go on long-term stakeout to confirm this animal, we may now have a place – one of many, but one of the most compelling – to consider.

1. DWA, in response to our other posts: I have just received via Amazon (sorry local booksellers but I was in a hurry) Jeff Meldrum’s “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.” I’m going to read it and try to keep an open mind. I’ve enjoyed the beginning, though at this point it’s more like narrative story-telling about how he became interested in the Sasquatch and such. Interesting so far. Thank you for suggesting that I take a look at it. You are right that it is important to review the evidence before rejecting or criticizing it.

2. So, do I understand correctly, that it’s not the video per se that’s the biggie here, it’s this footprint, or rather the association of the footprint with the video, that’s key to accepting the subject of this video as a potential Sasquatch? And the footprint has been given, or appears to have been given, the stamp of approval by expert Meldrum, so that’s why this seems so good?

3. I would like to read more about what Meldrum thinks about this footprint. The info from the article was pretty sketchy I thought.

4. DWA: I appreciate your confidence and enthusiasm for your subject. You clearly love this stuff. I can’t fathom, though, being perfect, and by always knowing, that seems to be what you are saying. However, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

5. I hope you guys are right, despite my skeptical posts recently. I hope there is a 9 foot tall humanoid out there. That would be interesting. Maybe someday I will be convinced by the evidence, both the extant evidence that I am starting to review and perhaps future evidence coming down the pike (DNA, etc.). From my perspective now, that seems like a tall order, but stranger things have happened.

1. Keep in mind that the proponents in this game get stretched really thin by their own lack of time to do what they’d like on this and the incredulity of the skeptics. The proponents can be uneven. It’s the evidence I focus on. Enjoy the reads.

2. “Perfect” is never it. It’s knowing which way to bet. Tossing 100% of the evidence without review because it could conceivably not be what it really seems to be is more the “perfect” mentality. As in “enemy of the good.”

3. It’s the concatenation of the vid, the track photo and the leading proponent’s attitude to both that makes me look at this one positively.

I picked up this story from a Greek (mainstream) news site: Link. So interest in Bigfoot may have reached new levels.

There is always two things that can be analyzed in a filmed Bigfoot sighting. The creature’s physical appearance and its movements or its interraction with the environment. Unlike with the P/G film, there isn’t much to see in this video in terms of physical appearance – just an obscure shadow disappearing behind trees.

The movement, however, is interesting and very Bigfoot-like. It has the Bigfoot signature. I feel as though I’ve seen the same movement pattern in a dozen other Bigfoot videos. It resembles a creep observing you behind bushes and as soon as they sense that you have seen them they make for a casual exit. I swear I have seen the same behavior in other videos.

Because of this I am led to believe that this is probably a genuine video and not a hoax.

1. I’ve seen a lot of them. That doesn’t look like a moose. I see what could easily be an arm, and I don’t do blobsquatch. The figure also looks vertically, not horizontally, oriented. (That’s also not the likeliest of places to see a moose. They don’t hang around steep dropoffs on high ridges much.)

2. That’s not what the guy who shot the video said. I doubt this would have made it to ABC News if it could be that easily debunked.

3. We weren’t there. An essential element of the debunker tool kit: you don’t disbelieve the witness if no reason exists to do so. There is none in this case. That doesn’t mean you swallow the witness’s story; it just means you don’t jump to the opposite extreme, with no evidence, to presume the witness was wrong. It does seem odd that so many of us are incapable of suspending judgment. (The witness, btw, did. He said he didn’t know what it was. But his description doesn’t make one think moose.)

4. Look at the ABC video. That track was found near the spot the animal was seen. Doesn’t look like a moose track; and a leading sasquatch proponent – a scientist whose technical specialty is directly relevant to the discussion – thinks it looks like a sasquatch track.

When there is no evidence that it was a moose; when available evidence indicates it might have been something else; and when a major news outlet avoids the usual snickering….well, I’m just inclined to believe that it just might possibly be something else.

Which is how a scientist has to look at it, if he has his skepticals on.